Performance of diagnostic mammography differs in the United States and Denmark

International Journal of Cancer

Volumn 127, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1905-1912

  Jensen, Allan ^a,b   Geller, Berta M ^c   Gard, Charlotte C ^d,e   Miglioretti, Diana L ^d,e   Yankaskas, Bonnie ^f   Carney, Patricia A ^g,h   Rosenberg, Robert D ⁱ   Vejborg, Ilse ^j   Lynge, Elsebeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b INSTITUTE OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^d GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^g DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^h OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^j Mental Health Center Glostrup   (Denmark)

more..

Author keywords

breast cancer; breast neoplasms; comparative health care; diagnostic mammography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENMARK; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; GROUPS BY AGE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASOUND; UNITED STATES; AGE; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER CENTER; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AREA UNDER CURVE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANCER CARE FACILITIES; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DENMARK; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77955434403     PISSN: 00207136     EISSN: 10970215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25198     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Perry NM, Quality assurance in the diagnosis of breast disease. EUSOMA Working Party. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37: 159-72.
2. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Geller BM, Leung JW, Rosenberg RD, Smith-Bindman R, Yankaskas BC,. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 2005; 235: 775-90.
3. Flobbe K, van der Linden ES, Kessels AG, van Engelshoven JM,. Diagnostic value of radiological breast imaging in a non-screening population. Int J Cancer 2001; 92: 616-18.
4. Eltahir A, Jibril JA, Squair J, Heys SD, Ah-See AK, Needham G, Gilbert FJ, Deans HE, McKean ME, Smart LM, Eremin O,. The accuracy of one-stop diagnosis for 1,110 patients presenting to a symptomatic breast clinic. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1999; 44: 226-30.
5. Zonderland HM, Pope TL, Jr,., Nieborg AJ,. The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population. Eur Radiol 2004; 14: 1743-50.
6. Duijm LE, Guit GL, Zaat JO, Koomen AR, Willebrand D,. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of breast imaging in the detection of cancer. Br J Cancer 1997; 76: 377-81.
7. Barlow WE, Lehman CD, Zheng Y, Ballard-Barbash R, Yankaskas BC, Cutter GR, Carney PA, Geller BM, Rosenberg R, Kerlikowske K, Weaver DL, Taplin SH,. Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 1151-9.
8. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE,. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002; 224: 861-9.
9. Miglioretti DL, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham L, Brenner RJ, Carney PA, Bowles EJ, Buist DS, Elmore JG,. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1854-63.
10. Jackson SL, Taplin SH, Sickles EA, Abraham L, Barlow WE, Carney PA, Geller B, Berns EA, Cutter GR, Elmore JG,. Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 814-27.
11. Jensen A, Vejborg I, Severinsen N, Nielsen S, Rank F, Mikkelsen GJ, Hilden J, Vistisen D, Dyreborg U, Lynge E,. Performance of clinical mammography: a nationwide study from Denmark. Int J Cancer 2006; 119: 183-91.
12. National Cancer Institute DoCCaPSARP. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Evaluating screening performance in practice. Bethesda, Maryland: National Cancer Institute DoCCaPSARP. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 2004.
13. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, Ernster VL, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, Barlow WE, Geller BM, Kerlikowske K, Edwards BK, Lynch CF, Urban N, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. Am J Roentgenol 1997; 1694: 1001-8.
14. American College of Radiology (ACR) Practice Guideline for the Performance of Screening and Diagnostic Mammography. Res. 24 -2008. Available at:. Accessed October 22, 2009.
15. American College of Radiology (ACR) Practice Guideline for the Performance of Breast Ultrasound Examination. Res. 34 -2007. Available at:. Accessed October 22, 2009.
16. Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Ljung BM, Grady D,. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139: 274-84.
17. National Board of Health. Guideline on diagnostic breast disease assessment [In Danish]. Copenhagen: National Board of Health, 1999.
18. Jensen A, Rank F, Dyreborg U, Severinsen N, Nielsen S, Lynge E, Vejborg I,. Performance of combined clinical mammography and needle biopsy: a nationwide study from Denmark. APMIS (Copenhagen) 2006; 114: 884-92.
19. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Abraham LA, Taplin SH, Dignan M, Cutter G, Ballard-Barbash R,. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 168-75.
20. American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast imaging reporting and data system atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). VA: Reston, 2003.
21. Jensen A, Olsen AH, Euler-Chelpin M, Helle NS, Vejborg I, Lynge E,. Do nonattenders in mammography screening programmes seek mammography elsewhere? Int J Cancer 2004; 113: 464-70.
22. International Agency for Research on CANCER (IARC): Age-standardized (world) incidence (per 100,000) and cumulative (0-74) incidence (percent) rates and standard errors. Breast (C50). Available at:. Accessed October 12, 2009.
23. National Center for Chronic Disease Preventon and Health Promotion. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Prevalence and Trends Data. Women's Health -2000. Women aged 50+ who have had a mammogram within the past two years. Available at:. Accessed September 5, 2009.
24. Obuchowski NA,. Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a proper measurement for performance in breast cancer screening?: Author reply. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 580.
25. Pepe MS,. A regression modelling framework for receiver operating characteristic curves in medical diagnostic testing. Biometrika 1997; 84: 595-608.
26. Krupinski EA, Jiang Y,. Anniversary paper: evaluation of medical imaging systems. Med Phys 2008; 35: 645-59.
27. Hadjiiski L, Chan HP, Sahiner B, Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA,. Quasi-continuous and discrete confidence rating scales for observer performance studies: effects on ROC analysis. Acad Radiol 2007; 14: 38-48.
28. Geller BM, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R, Ernster VL, Yankaskas BC, Sickles EA, Carney PA, Dignan MB, Rosenberg RD, Urban N, Zheng Y, Taplin SH,. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Radiology 2002; 222: 536-42.
29. Geller BM, Ichikawa LE, Buist DS, Sickles EA, Carney PA, Yankaskas BC, Dignan M, Kerlikowske K, Yabroff KR, Barlow W, Rosenberg RD,. Improving the concordance of mammography assessment and management recommendations. Radiology 2006; 241: 67-75.
30. Olsen AH, Bihrmann K, Jensen MB, Vejborg I, Lynge E,. Breast density and outcome of mammography screening: a cohort study. Br J Cancer 2009; 100: 1205-8.